The defense has rested and all evidence is in for the Oscar Pistorius murder trial. If a trial were merely a lawyering contest, we could easily call the case for the prosecution and go home right now.
Here, the top four ways the prosecution has outlawyered the defense in the closely watched, South African courtroom.
1. Nel’s scorching cross-examination eviscerated Pistorius’ story
Gerrie Nel, the lead prosecutor, is about as aggressive, brilliant and thorough as a human in a courtroom can be; he’s shown no mercy to the “Blade Runner” throughout the trial.
As a prosecutor should, Nel has been a fierce advocate for the victim, Reeva Steenkamp, shot to death by her boyfriend in the early hours of Valentine’s Day 2013. On cross-examination, Nel eviscerated Pistorius’ far-fetched story that he thought he was firing at an intruder as he shot through a bathroom door in his home. In street clothes and with her cell phone, having locked the bathroom door, Steenkamp doesn’t appear to have simply gotten up in the night to use the restroom.
Ultimately, after five days of grueling cross-examination by Nel, Pistorious changed his entire defense story from putative self-defense (I thought I was protecting myself from a burglar) to accident (the gun just went off) to mental defect (I didn’t know what I was doing).
Changing his account of the reason for the shooting – the only issue in the trial – was about as bad as the testimony could have gone for Pistorius. The only way this could have been worse for the Olympian is if he’d stood up in court and announced he was guilty of murder.
2. Mental illness you say? Let’s have that tested
The defense focused on Pistorius’ mental state, with several witnesses testifying that he suffered from anxiety and that his amputated legs caused him to feel vulnerable.
What we did not hear: expected testimony on South Africa’s sky-high violent crime rates or on Pistorius’ fear of such crimes. In fact, the gated community where he lived, we learned, was fairly safe; police reports showed no prior history of Pistorius as a crime victim.
Once the defense claimed Pistorius was suffering from emotional disturbances, the prosecution convinced the judge to put the trial on hold and send Pistorius out for psychological testing – a savvy move.
A month later, the results: no mental illness at the time of the shooting. Another winning strategy for the state.
3. Good old-fashioned circumstantial evidence
While the prosecution has no one smoking gun, they have amassed sufficient circumstantial evidence for the judge and two assessors (the case will be decided by a majority vote of the three) to conclude that Pistorius intentionally fired at Steenkamp.
Several neighbors heard a woman screaming just before gun shots rang out. A ballistics expert established that Steenkamp was in a defensive position when she was shot. Steenkamp had texted that she was afraid of Pistorius and his volatile temper.
Bit by bit, witness by witness, Nel built a solid foundation of evidence which, when viewed as a whole, undercuts Pistorius’ self-defense claim.
And in recent days, a leaked defense video – not introduced at trial but widely disseminated in the media – showed Pistorius to be highly mobile without his prosthetic legs, able to nimbly and quickly move forwards, backwards, even while pantomiming holding a gun.
4. Pistorius’ history of playing with guns
Pistorius isn’t on trial only for the shooting of Steenkamp. Instead, several prior incidents where he was reckless with guns, shooting them off and then attempting a cover-up, have come in to evidence. Another masterful move by the prosecution to show Pistorius’ habit of shooting first and asking questions later.
The verdict?
Of course, a trial is not a lawyering contest, and Pistorius’ guilt or innocence will turn on the evidence itself. In my opinion, Pistorius is most likely to be convicted of murder given the strong proof the prosecution established.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient and, in fact, is normally the only evidence the state has in a murder trial. Even if the panel tends toward leniency, rejecting the state’s best evidence, a conviction of the lesser charge of culpable homicide (negligent killing) should be an easy fit on these facts.
An acquittal? Highly unlikely. As this trial draws to a close with summations in early August, Pistorius’ story remains as preposterous as ever: he heard a bump in the night and without checking on his girlfriend, who should have been right next to him, he grabbed a gun and shot wildly at whoever was behind that locked door?
Not behavior any civilized society can accept.
Related Articles:
- Fearing Fear Itself: Oscar Pistorius’ Defense
- Oscar Pistorius Trial: A Look into South Africa’s Legal System
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Avvo.
Photo credit: Shutterstock.com
7 comments
Claudia Miles
I can't say I agree with your analysis at all. Not even when it comes to the so-called better lawyering. Nothing well-thought out about Gerrie Nel's defense. He tried to trip up witnesses on the most minute of details, the most trivial, just to say, See, you got the word wrong. You said that slightly differently. Further, he did not get Pistorius to change his story. Now HE may be saying that, but it isn't true. Rather, he got Pistorius to add to the story. And the additions are unrelated to the murder charge and instead relate to the manslaughter charge. Because unlike in the U.S., the law there says that even if someone IS shooting in self defense, they must stop shooting if not in imminent danger. And they can still be charged with a manslaughter charge in the case where self-defense is proven. Now all that happened really is Nel questioned him on the manslaughter aspect of the case. Because even if he knew it was an intruder, why did he not stop after three shots, for example? Pistorius never changed his self defense story! He simply said that he was in shock and was in fact anxious about crime. And where do you get your facts by the way? Reeva Steenkamp had been the victim of crime in that same neighborhood. And the defense most certainly brought up the crime rate. And there was recent crime in that very development. It is untrue completely that there is no crime in that locked development. And there is further evidence that Pistorious had reacted to sounds he believed were a break-in but in fact was the sound of the washing machine just a couple months before this incident occurred. And he armed himself before realizing he was wrong. And he tweeted about it at the time.
Further, the neighbors who heard "screams" before the shots were disproven time-wise and male vs female voice scream-wise. Those neighbors were all the furthest away. The three or four neighbors closest to Oscar Pistorius all told a story that corroborated Pistorius' story. And Oscar called the closest neighbor who said the phone rung immediately after the shots rang out. And the neighbor came right over and saw Reeva and the scene and Pistorius trying to revive her. So the defense won that point about what the neighbors heard. Further, the diagnosis that was returned was that Pistorius suffered from anxiety disorder for some years, including at the time of the shooting. And that relates to the manslaughter not the murder. The defense actualIy was far more elegant and well-spoken than the prosecution. And having the judge stop and have Pistorius examined for mental health was merely a delay tactic that in outcome helped the defense far more than the prosecution. (And I actualIy followed the trial daily, as opposed to listening to trial highlights by uninformed local news anchors.)
Barry cole
"History of playing with guns". I play with guns. I hope my recreation will never be a piece of evidence in a trial. You mean " "History of improper acts with guns"? And further some kind of cover up of such acts? That is the story you typed. Your bolded title is something else. Ask yourself why you use such things in an article that is not about your distaste for guns. The undercurrent of falsely inflecting your personal feelings on a summation of facts, makes you less credible, and even unfairly biased.
Nikki
I am trying to renew my tags for car but cannot because the cosigner on the title has a flag from Maryland State tax...how can i resolve this issue because I need my car to drive
Danielle Post
Hi Nikki,
It sounds like you have a legal question that would be best answered by an attorney in our free Q&A forum. Attorneys do not provide advice through our blog, but they do in the forum, usually within the first day or two of posting. All questions are open to answers for seven days. You can post your questions here when you're ready: http://www.avvo.com/ask-a-lawyer. Avvo also offers a wealth of legal information in our Knowledge Base here: http://www.avvo.com/free-legal-advice.
I hope this is helpful!
Kindly, Danielle
phoebe49
No one has mentioned that Oscar's guard dogs never barked from the "intruder" and that his servent who lived on the premises slept through all of the commotion.
Ronnie Palmer
Cogent and succinct. Hear, Hear!
Matt
Compelling!